Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Energies
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Cremades, L.V.; Canals
Casals, L. Analysis of the Future of
Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle
Seems Just a Transitory Alternative.
Energies 2022,15, 9149. https://
doi.org/10.3390/en15239149
Academic Editor: J. C. Hernandez
Received: 18 October 2022
Accepted: 29 November 2022
Published: 2 December 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
energies
Article
Analysis of the Future of Mobility: The Battery Electric Vehicle
Seems Just a Transitory Alternative
Lázaro V. Cremades * and Lluc Canals Casals
Department of Project and Construction Engineering, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya,
08028 Barcelona, Spain
*Correspondence: lazaro.cremades@upc.edu
Abstract:
It is, undoubtedly, a widespread belief that the electric vehicle (EV) is considered sustainable.
However, in the manufacturing and retirement phases, EVs do not appear to be as sustainable as
internal combustion vehicles (ICVs) and during the use phase, the pollution produced by EVs
depends on the source of electricity generation to recharge the batteries. From an economic point
of view, EVs do not appear to be competitive compared to ICVs either. However, current market
trends push hard on battery EVs (BEV) and plug-in hybrid vehicles (PHEV). This study aims to
analyze which of the possible mobility alternatives has more sense to be considered as the option
with higher penetration in the future. To this end, four known mobility technologies (ICVs, PHEVs,
BEVs, and hydrogen fuel cell EVs or FCEVs) are compared for a mid-size car using published data,
through environmental and techno-economic criteria, by applying the analytic hierarchy process
method in an objective manner on multiple scenarios. Putting all criteria together, it seems that the
ICV alternative is the one receiving the best results in most of the scenarios, except in the case where
the environmental criteria have the greatest weight. The BEV solution has almost always turned out
to be the worst alternative, but it is the only choice we have right now.
Keywords:
internal combustion engine vehicles; electric vehicles; AHP; pairwise comparison; plug-in
hybrid; fuel cell; mobility alternatives
1. Introduction
The European Commission’s Sustainable and Smart Mobility Strategy states that at
least 30 million electric cars should be operating on European roads by 2030 [
1
]. Making
urban travel more sustainable is one of the greatest challenges we face as a society today. It
is undoubtedly a widespread belief that mobility using electric vehicles (EVs) is considered
sustainable mobility. To prove this statement, numerous studies in the literature have
analyzed the life cycle of EVs regarding greenhouse gas emissions [
2
–
10
]. In addition,
there are also studies comparing the life cycle of electric vehicles with that of conventional
vehicles (i.e., those powered directly by fossil fuels or internal combustion vehicles, ICVs),
such as [
11
–
14
], and/or between different types of electric vehicles (hybrid EVs or HEVs,
plug-in hybrid EVs or PHEVs, battery EVs or BEVs, or hydrogen fuel cell EVs or FCEVs),
such as [
15
–
18
]. These studies show that there are several determining factors for the
sustainability of the EV regarding the manufacture, use, and retirement phases that might
compromise its suitability in comparison to ICV.
In fact, the manufacturing phase is stated to have a higher impact on EVs than ICVs,
which is calculated to be between 40 and 70% mainly due to the manufacture of the
battery [19–21].
Nonetheless, it is said that, during the use phase, the EV is capable to counteract this
higher impact caused in the manufacturing phase. Indeed, the main origin of pollution in
the use phase is due to the generation of the electricity needed to recharge the batteries
or to produce hydrogen in the case of FCEVs. If the origin comes from renewable energy
Energies 2022,15, 9149. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15239149 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022,15, 9149 2 of 12
sources, EVs can be considered “green”; otherwise, they are merely “clean” compared to
ICVs [
13
] or, depending on the consumption of the vehicle, type of trips, and the electricity
mix of each country, they could even be worse [22].
To reduce even more the environmental impact of the use phase, the automotive
industry has continuously pursued weight reduction. However, the weight of batteries in
BEVs and PHEVs is related to their energy capacity, on which the vehicle’s range depends.
For example, 6 to 12 kWh batteries typically weigh between 100 and 150 kg, while 60 to
100 kWh batteries range from 350 to 600 kg. Therefore, their weight can be up to 25% of the
vehicle’s weight [23].
Finally, the end-of-life (EoL) of EV batteries is also a critical phase in terms of sus-
tainability. It is even more critical if the EoL is caused by the battery, lithium-ion batteries
are said to be no longer functional for electric mobility when their state of health (SOH)
is below 80% and they need to be replaced [
24
]. At this stage, a possible solution to in-
crease the sustainability of such batteries might come from an extension of their useful life
through applications that do not require such high SOH values, for example, as backup
energy support in residential households or power variance in grid-scale photovoltaic
plants [
25
,
26
]. These approaches are indeed aligned with circular economy streams, as the
literature states that these environmental benefits are reached from being unnecessary to
build new batteries for those purposes. However, it seems that this statement is not entirely
correct, and doubts arise regarding the so-called benefits of battery reuse [
27
,
28
]. Be it as it
may, at the very end, vehicles should be recycled, and the recycling of batteries is still in
the early stages in comparison to the other alternatives, including FCEV [29].
In addition to the environmental aspect, sustainability also has an economic compo-
nent. In that sense, an overview of the automotive market shows that EVs (not considering
micro-mobility) are more expensive than ICVs. In fact, the literature has studied the costs
involved in the construction and use of EVs, such as [
30
] in Germany or [
31
] in China.
Some studies did a step forward comparing the costs of some EV alternatives with each
other and/or with ICVs [
32
,
33
], indicating that BEVs are in the worst position considering
the purchase cost.
For all these reasons, this study considers it necessary to delve into all existing (and
expecting to be) possible mobility alternatives in the market in the coming years. To do
so, this study analyzes which of them has more sense to be considered as the option with
higher penetration in the future and if the current entrance of the BEV and PHEV is just a
temporary situation or something that will, effectively, perpetuate for the next century.
This study compares four known mobility technologies (ICVs, PHEVs, BEVs, and
FCEVs) for a mid-size car using published data. For this purpose, environmental and
techno-economic criteria are used. Finally, a prioritization of the alternatives is presented
by applying the analytic hierarchy process (AHP) method objectively.
2. Data and Methods
2.1. Basic Data
According to the market prospects and what currently is running our roads, this study
analyzes four alternatives, which are:
•Internal combustion vehicle (gasoline) (ICV)
•Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle (gasoline and electricity) (PHEV)
•Battery electric vehicle (electricity) (BEV)
•Fuel cell electric vehicle (hydrogen and electricity) (FCEV)
This study assumes that the FCEV, in addition to the hydrogen fuel cell, resembles an
electric battery that can be recharged to full charge via a plug, just like the PHEV.
The vehicle chosen for the comparison of the four alternatives is a car with a total
power of 100 kW. Examples of representative cars of this power are: BMW 118i 2019 as
ICV [
34
], Toyota Prius 2017 as PHEV [
35
], Hyundai Kona Electric 2018 [
36
], and Citroën
ë-Jumpy Hydrogen [37]. Some significant characteristics of these cars are listed in Table 1.
Energies 2022,15, 9149 3 of 12
Table 1. Car characteristic data used in the analysis.
Alternative Power
(kW)
Weight
(kg)
Energy Consumption (L
Gasoline-eq/100 km) Range (km) Energy
Storage (L)
Capacity
(kWh)
Interval Average Interval Average
ICV 100 1365 5–10 7.5 420–840 630 42 373.8 4
PHEV 100 1445 3.4–4.6 14 757–1135 946 66 2391.5 5
BEV 100 1610 1.6–4.4 3 109–300 204 300 39.2 6
FCEV 100 1300 6.6–8.8 7.7 350–490 420 200 3248.1 7
1
The 8.8 kWh battery allows traveling about 40 km at full load with an equivalent consumption of 1 L gasoline-
eq/100 km. The combustion engine, which consumes 4–6 L gasoline/100 km, is used to cover the remaining
60 km. Equivalence ratio: 1 L gasoline = 8.9 kWh.
2
Volume of fuel tank plus batteries.
3
Volume of 70 MPa H
2
tanks plus batteries.
4
Equivalence ratio: 1 L gasoline = 8.9 kWh.
5
Energy contained in 43 L gasoline (tank) plus
8.8 kWh battery.
6
Battery capacity.
7
Energy contained in 4.4 kg H
2
(tanks) plus 10.5 kWh battery. Equivalence
ratio: 1 kg H2= 54 kWh.
Where “range” refers to the mileage that the vehicle can drive with a full energy
storage system (i.e., fuel tank, battery, or fuel cell). In the case of PHEV and FCEV, the
volume and capacity of the energy storage system refer to the overall volume and capacity
of the two energy systems, respectively.
2.2. AHP Method
The process followed to discern which of these four alternatives has higher interest or
chances to capture the automotive market in the long-term future is through the analytic
hierarchy process (AHP) method, which is generally used to select alternatives objectively.
The AHP method, proposed by Thomas Saaty in 1980 [
38
], is a quantitative method
for multi-criteria decision-making that facilitates the selection among different alternatives
based on a series of criteria or selection variables and expert judgments expressed through
pairwise comparisons using a preference scale [
39
–
41
]. Criteria and alternatives follow a
hierarchical structure. This structure is described by the objective, criteria, and finally, the
alternatives to be compared (see Figure 1). One of the fundamental aspects of the method
is to choose the selection criteria well, to define them properly, and to ensure that they are
mutually independent.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 13
ICV [34], Toyota Prius 2017 as PHEV [35], Hyundai Kona Electric 2018 [36], and Citroën
ë-Jumpy Hydrogen [37]. Some significant characteristics of these cars are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Car characteristic data used in the analysis.
Alterna-
tive
Power
(kW)
Weight
(kg)
Energy Consumption (L Gasoline-eq/100 km)
Range (km)
Energy
Storage (L)
Capacity
(kWh)
Interval
Average
Interval
Average
ICV
100
1365
5–10
7.5
420–840
630
42
373.8 4
PHEV
100
1445
3.4–4.6 1
4
757–1135
946
66 2
391.5 5
BEV
100
1610
1.6–4.4
3
109–300
204
300
39.2 6
FCEV
100
1300
6.6–8.8
7.7
350–490
420
200 3
248.1 7
1 The 8.8 kWh battery allows traveling about 40 km at full load with an equivalent consumption of
1 L gasoline-eq/100 km. The combustion engine, which consumes 4–6 L gasoline/100 km, is used to
cover the remaining 60 km. Equivalence ratio: 1 L gasoline = 8.9 kWh. 2 Volume of fuel tank plus
batteries. 3 Volume of 70 MPa H2 tanks plus batteries. 4 Equivalence ratio: 1 L gasoline = 8.9 kWh. 5
Energy contained in 43 L gasoline (tank) plus 8.8 kWh battery. 6 Battery capacity. 7 Energy contained
in 4.4 kg H2 (tanks) plus 10.5 kWh battery. Equivalence ratio: 1 kg H2 = 54 kWh
Where “range” refers to the mileage that the vehicle can drive with a full energy stor-
age system (i.e., fuel tank, battery, or fuel cell). In the case of PHEV and FCEV, the volume
and capacity of the energy storage system refer to the overall volume and capacity of the
two energy systems, respectively.
2.2. AHP Method
The process followed to discern which of these four alternatives has higher interest
or chances to capture the automotive market in the long-term future is through the ana-
lytic hierarchy process (AHP) method, which is generally used to select alternatives ob-
jectively.
The AHP method, proposed by Thomas Saaty in 1980 [38], is a quantitative method
for multi-criteria decision-making that facilitates the selection among different alterna-
tives based on a series of criteria or selection variables and expert judgments expressed
through pairwise comparisons using a preference scale [39–41]. Criteria and alternatives
follow a hierarchical structure. This structure is described by the objective, criteria, and
finally, the alternatives to be compared (see Figure 1). One of the fundamental aspects of
the method is to choose the selection criteria well, to define them properly, and to ensure
that they are mutually independent.
Figure 1. The hierarchical structure of the AHP method followed in this study.
This study applies the AHP method to compare the four alternatives mentioned
above through the following six criteria:
Objective:
Select the mobility technology
Criterion 1:
GWP
Criterion 2:
POP
Criterion 3:
FT
Criterion 4:
FI
Criterion 5:
VC
Criterion 6:
FC
Alternative 1:
ICV
Alternative 2:
PHEV
Alternative 3:
BEV
Alternative 4:
FCEV
Figure 1. The hierarchical structure of the AHP method followed in this study.
This study applies the AHP method to compare the four alternatives mentioned above
through the following six criteria:
•
Global warming potential (GWP): total greenhouse gases emitted during the entire
life of the vehicle.
Energies 2022,15, 9149 4 of 12
•
Photochemical oxidant potential (POP): gases (NO
x
, CO, VOC) with the potential to
form photochemical oxidants, such as ozone, in the presence of solar radiation emitted
during the entire life of the vehicle.
•Fueling time (FT): time to fill the energy storage system.
•
Fueling infrastructure (FI): cost of a fuel (gasoline and/or electricity, or hydrogen)
station per vehicle.
•Vehicle cost (VC): cost of the vehicle in mass production.
•Fuel cost (FC): cost of fuel (gasoline and/or electricity, or hydrogen) per km driven.
Some of these criteria are used in other works (e.g., [
33
]), being considered relevant
and mutually exclusive for the purpose of this study.
In the original AHP method, Saaty’s scale is used for the paired comparison (see
Table 2). This is one of the keys to the success of this method, since this scale allows
the transformation of qualitative aspects into quantitative ones, making the comparison
between the different alternatives much easier and giving rise to more objective and
reliable results.
Table 2. Saaty’s scale of preference for the comparison of two elements (based on [42]).
Importance Meaning
1Equal importance (both elements contribute equally to the
objective)
3
Moderate importance (an element is slightly more important than
the other)
5
Strong importance (an element is more important than the other)
7
Very strong importance (an element is muchmore important than
the other)
9
Extreme importance (there is clear evidence that an element is far
more important than the other)
Reciprocals of above
If the element “a” has an importance value “x” with respect to the
element “b”, then “b” has an importance value “1/x” with respect
to “a”
Rationals (x.1–x.9) Ratios arising from the scale
Another of the strengths of the method is to assess the consistency of the decision to
validate it as the best option [42].
The values assigned to each alternative are based on the six criteria, as shown in
Table 3. These values correspond to the basic data in Table 1and/or to values extracted
from bibliographic sources as indicated in the same table.
Table 3. Values of each criterion for each alternative.
Criterion Alternative Criterion Value Remarks
GWP: Global warming potential
(kg CO2eq/km)
ICV 0.291 Vehicle production is responsible for 21% of the
GWP impact [17].
PHEV 0.242 26% in vehicle production [17].
BEV 0.265 42% in vehicle production [17].
FCEV 0.18 [33].
POP: Photochemical oxidant
potential (kg C2H4eq/km)
ICV 5.21 ×10−521% in vehicle production [17].
PHEV 4.23 ×10−527% in vehicle production [17].
BEV 1.75 ×10−564% in vehicle production [17].
FCEV 1.19 ×10−5Estimated.
ICV 2 Estimated.
Energies 2022,15, 9149 5 of 12
Table 3. Cont.
Criterion Alternative Criterion Value Remarks
FT: Fueling time (minutes)
PHEV 70.5
2 min to fill gasoline tank + 68.5 min for
recharging the battery using a 240 V, 40 A, 7.7 W
charger.
BEV 305 Idem as PHEV.
FCEV 87 5 min to fill the H2tank + 82 min for recharging
the battery as PHEV.
FI: Fueling infrastructure (2019
USD per vehicle-eq)
ICV 2430 Cost of building a gas station: USD 2,448,000
(2022); 6 fuel pumps [43].
PHEV 2550 Idem as BEV.
BEV 2550 Cost for a higher Level 2 capacity outlet (240 V,
40 A): USD 2150 (2008) [33].
FCEV 7130
Cost of building a hydrogen station in mass
production: USD 2,200,000 (2008); 6 hydrogen
intakes [33].
VC: Vehicle cost (2019 USD)
ICV 33,830 [34]
PHEV 37,950 [35]
BEV 43,830 [36]
FCEV 108,900 [37]
FC: Fuel cost (2019 USD per km)
ICV 0.0102 Gasoline price: USD 2.6 (2019) per gallon;
1 gallon = 3.785 L.
PHEV 0.0052 Gasoline price as for ICV; electricity price: USD
0.1301 (2019) per kWh.
BEV 0.0319 Electricity price as for PHEV.
FCEV 0.0491 Hydrogen price: USD 4.25 per kg; electricity
price as for PHEV.
Costs are referenced to USD 2019. For this purpose, the inflation indexes for the USA
published in [44] have been used when necessary.
In the fueling infrastructure criterion, the cost per BEV is about USD 2550 for a higher
Level 2 capacity outlet (240 V, 40 A). The same cost is estimated for a PHEV, as it can be
understood that their owners will want to be able to recharge the vehicle as if it were a
BEV. Therefore, they will need to install a similar charging station. In the case of ICVs, by
analogy with BEVs, it has been considered that the cost of fueling infrastructure per vehicle
would be the total cost of building a gas station equipped with 6 fuel pumps divided by
the number of vehicles that can be filled in the time it takes to fill a BEV. This description
can be mathematically calculated through Equation (1):
CF IICV =CFI
n·tICV
tBEV
(1)
where CFI
ICV
is the cost of fueling infrastructure per ICV;CFI is the total cost of building a
gas station; nis the number of fuel pumps; t
ICV
is the fueling time for an ICV;t
BEV
is the
fueling time for a BEV. The same considerations apply to FCEVs. In the case of the PHEV
and the FCEV, this study does not consider adding the infrastructure cost of filling the
PHEV gasoline tank nor the infrastructure cost of charging the FCEV batteries, respectively.
In the original AHP method, comparisons between pairs of alternatives are usually
made based on judgments gained through experience [
45
]. However, in this work, these
comparisons have been obtained mathematically from the data of the alternatives shown in
Tables 1and 3. For each criterion, the ratios between the values of each alternative against
the others are calculated. Then, an adjustment of these ratios to the preference scale (1 to
9 in Table 2) according to a linear relationship is completed. In this way, the comparison
between alternatives is completely objective. That is, suppose that for a given criterion
Energies 2022,15, 9149 6 of 12
the value of alternative A is “a” and for alternative B it is “b”. Then, the ratio “a/b” will
correspond to a value “p” in the preference scale as follows:
If a/b= 1 →p= 1 (2)
If a/b>1→p=a
b−1·8
rmax −1+1 (3)
If a/b<1→p=1
(a
b−1)·8
rmax−1+1
(4)
where rmax = maximum value of all ratios in a given criterion.
The next step of the AHP method is to normalize the importance ratios so that the
sum of the values in each column of the matrix equals 1, resulting in a standard matrix.
Finally, the priority weights of each alternative are obtained by averaging the values of this
matrix, referring to a given criterion. The same process is applied to all criteria.
Once the AHP method is applied to the alternatives, a sensitivity analysis is performed
to determine the influence of the criteria weights on the prioritization of the alternatives by
analyzing ten what-if scenarios (Table 4): in scenario 0 all criteria have the same importance,
that is, they all have the same weight equal to w
i
= 100/6 = 16.67%. In scenarios 1 to 9,
these weights vary giving more relevance to a group of criteria having similar concepts:
1. Environmental criteria (GWP and POP): scenarios 1 to 3.
2. Technical criteria (FT and FI): scenarios 4 to 6.
3. Economic criteria (VC and FC): scenarios 7 to 9.
Table 4. Criteria weights assumed for the ten scenarios of the sensitivity analysis.
GWP POP FT FI VC FC Sum
Scenario 0 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 0.167 1
Scenario 1 0.217 0.217 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 1
Scenario 2 0.267 0.267 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 1
Scenario 3 0.317 0.317 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 1
Scenario 4 0.142 0.142 0.217 0.217 0.142 0.142 1
Scenario 5 0.117 0.117 0.267 0.267 0.117 0.117 1
Scenario 6 0.092 0.092 0.317 0.317 0.092 0.092 1
Scenario 7 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.142 0.217 0.217 1
Scenario 8 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.117 0.267 0.267 1
Scenario 9 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.092 0.317 0.317 1
To give higher relevance to these 3 groups separately, it has been assumed that the
weight of each group (independently) increases by 30, 60, or 90% in front of scenario 0,
while decreasing the weights of the remaining criteria accordingly. The resulting weights
per criteria on each scenario are shown in Table 4. The increase in weights per criteria
against scenario 0 is indicated in bold.
Lastly, the final priority order of the alternatives taking into account all the criteria is
obtained through the weighted sum of the prioritization weights of each alternative by the
weight of each criterion for each scenario, as shown in Equation (5):
WA=∑6
i=1wAi·wi(5)
where W
A
is the overall weight of the alternative A;w
Ai
is the weight of the alternative A
for the criterion iobtained by the AHP method; wiis the weight of criterion i(i= 1 to 6).
3. Results
To facilitate the comprehension of the process, an example of the steps followed is
presented for the GWP criterion only. Therefore, Tables 5–7show the GWP intermediate
Energies 2022,15, 9149 7 of 12
and consecutive results of applying the AHP method based on the values in Table 3. Table 5
presents the ratios of the GWP criterion values shown in Table 3for the four alternatives
against each other. Table 6shows the adjustment of these ratios in Table 5to Saaty’s scale (1
to 9). Finally, based on the values in Table 6, Table 7shows the resulting normalization by
the sum of their column (the final sum of each column should be equal to 1).
Table 5.
Ratios between alternatives for the global warming potential (GWP) criterion from Table 3
values.
ICV PHEV BEV FCEV
ICV 1.000 0.832 0.911 0.619
PHEV 1.202 1.000 1.095 0.744
BEV 1.098 0.913 1.000 0.679
FCEV 1.617 1.344 1.472 1.000
Table 6.
Importance ratios between alternatives for the GWP criterion fitted to the preference scale
(1–9).
ICV PHEV BEV FCEV
ICV 1.000 0.276 0.440 0.111
PHEV 3.627 1.000 2.233 0.183
BEV 2.273 0.448 1.000 0.140
FCEV 9.000 5.468 7.126 1.000
Sum 15.900 7.192 10.799 1.434
Table 7. Standard matrix of importance ratios between alternatives for the GWP criterion.
ICV PHEV BEV FCEV Priority
ICV 0.063 0.038 0.041 0.077 0.055
PHEV 0.228 0.139 0.207 0.127 0.175
BEV 0.143 0.062 0.093 0.098 0.099
FCEV 0.566 0.760 0.660 0.697 0.671
Sum 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
The last column in Table 7shows the priority vector of the alternatives, calculated as
the average of the values of the other columns. In the case of the GWP criterion, the FCEV
alternative is the one that offers the largest value prominently (in bold).
Following the same process to obtain the priority values in Table 7for the GWP, Table 8
shows the equivalent results for the other criteria (POP, FT, FI, VC, and FC). Note that,
being a repetitive method, the initial steps (those that would correspond to Tables 5and 6
for these other criteria) are not presented to ease the reading of the document.
All matrices have successfully passed the AHP consistency test, which ensures that the
values of the ratios used in the method are neither random nor illogical in their pairwise
comparisons [38,46].
According to these results, FCEV would be the priority alternative for the GWP
(
weight = 67.1%
) and POP criteria (56.1%); ICV would be the priority alternative for the
FI (35.6%), FT (58.0%), and VC (42.3%) criteria, while the PHEV alternative would be the
priority alternative for the FC criterion (55.6%).
Energies 2022,15, 9149 8 of 12
Table 8.
Standard matrix of importance ratios between alternatives for the POP, FT, FI, VC, and FC
criteria.
Criterion Alternative ICV PHEV BEV FCEV Priority
Photochemical
oxidant
potential (POP)
ICV 0.058 0.050 0.050 0.064 0.055
PHEV 0.090 0.077 0.065 0.082 0.078
BEV 0.330 0.333 0.284 0.274 0.305
FCEV 0.523 0.540 0.601 0.580 0.561
Fueling time
(FT)
ICV 0.563 0.497 0.731 0.528 0.580
PHEV 0.201 0.177 0.096 0.165 0.160
BEV 0.063 0.151 0.081 0.144 0.110
FCEV 0.174 0.175 0.092 0.163 0.151
Fueling
infrastructure
(FI)
ICV 0.362 0.364 0.364 0.336 0.356
PHEV 0.299 0.300 0.300 0.314 0.303
BEV 0.299 0.300 0.300 0.314 0.303
FCEV 0.040 0.036 0.036 0.037 0.037
Vehicle cost (VC)
ICV 0.437 0.448 0.432 0.374 0.423
PHEV 0.303 0.312 0.326 0.321 0.316
BEV 0.211 0.200 0.209 0.264 0.221
FCEV 0.049 0.040 0.033 0.042 0.041
Fuel cost (FC)
ICV 0.289 0.289 0.285 0.286 0.287
PHEV 0.553 0.554 0.557 0.559 0.556
BEV 0.096 0.095 0.095 0.094 0.095
FCEV 0.063 0.062 0.063 0.062 0.062
However, to know the overall priority of alternatives, all criteria must be considered
at the same time. This is completed by applying the weights from the ten scenarios shown
in Table 4. Figure 2presents the results of applying the decision matrices resulting from
multiplying the priority vectors in Tables 7and 8by the weight vectors of the six criteria
from Table 4according to these scenarios.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 13
Figure 2. Overall priority of the alternatives for the ten scenarios.
When including all criteria to take a decision (Figure 2), it seems that the ICV alter-
native is the one receiving the best results in most scenarios. However, in the cases where
the environmental criteria (GHP and POP) have the greatest weight (scenarios 1 to 3), the
FCEV alternative takes the lead and the ICV decreases linearly as the relevance of the
environmental criteria increases. Nonetheless, as FCEVs are not fully developed and
available in the market, BEVs and PHEVs are the ones entering now into the market.
It should be observed, though, that the BEV alternative results to be the least inter-
esting in almost all scenarios.
4. Discussion
Results show how dramatically the ICV is best evaluated in half of the scenarios an-
alyzed. These results are in accordance with the market trends through a time when the
choice was taken mostly based on cost-effectiveness. When this occurs (scenarios 7–9),
Figure 2 shows that the choice would still be the same, as petrol fuel-based alternatives
take the lead because the different costs of these new technologies make them less attrac-
tive [47]. The history of cars relates the competition between EVs and ICVs from the early
stages (1890) until the arrival of petrol-based fuels at the beginning of the 20th century,
the moment in which the ICV became widely adopted due to its practical advantages [48].
ICVs spread worldwide and became the choice of mobility technology, becoming one of
the most powerful industries in the world. However, the side effects of ICVs, which were
initially neglected, are nowadays more visible than ever. On one side, greenhouse gas
emissions are causing an increase in the temperatures on Earth, while NOx, CO, and VOC
are polluting the air in urban areas that begin to take measures to avoid the entrance of
older vehicles or to dramatically restrict the mobility of polluting vehicles.
These side effects are the main cause of change in regulations. The regulatory new
framework together with the improvement of batteries (with the apparition, in 1990, of
the first commercialization of Li-ion batteries [49]) somehow forced the entrance of elec-
trified mobility. This relatively new technology opened the path to the third awakening
of the EV (the second one took place in 1990 with the arrival and sudden death of the
Impact, a model from GM [50]). Nissan Leaf (2010) was the first worldwide sold BEV
Figure 2. Overall priority of the alternatives for the ten scenarios.
Energies 2022,15, 9149 9 of 12
When including all criteria to take a decision (Figure 2), it seems that the ICV alterna-
tive is the one receiving the best results in most scenarios. However, in the cases where
the environmental criteria (GHP and POP) have the greatest weight (scenarios 1 to 3),
the FCEV alternative takes the lead and the ICV decreases linearly as the relevance of
the environmental criteria increases. Nonetheless, as FCEVs are not fully developed and
available in the market, BEVs and PHEVs are the ones entering now into the market.
It should be observed, though, that the BEV alternative results to be the least interesting
in almost all scenarios.
4. Discussion
Results show how dramatically the ICV is best evaluated in half of the scenarios
analyzed. These results are in accordance with the market trends through a time when
the choice was taken mostly based on cost-effectiveness. When this occurs (scenarios 7–9),
Figure 2shows that the choice would still be the same, as petrol fuel-based alternatives take
the lead because the different costs of these new technologies make them less attractive [
47
].
The history of cars relates the competition between EVs and ICVs from the early stages
(1890) until the arrival of petrol-based fuels at the beginning of the 20th century, the
moment in which the ICV became widely adopted due to its practical advantages [
48
].
ICVs spread worldwide and became the choice of mobility technology, becoming one of
the most powerful industries in the world. However, the side effects of ICVs, which were
initially neglected, are nowadays more visible than ever. On one side, greenhouse gas
emissions are causing an increase in the temperatures on Earth, while NO
x
, CO, and VOC
are polluting the air in urban areas that begin to take measures to avoid the entrance of
older vehicles or to dramatically restrict the mobility of polluting vehicles.
These side effects are the main cause of change in regulations. The regulatory new
framework together with the improvement of batteries (with the apparition, in 1990, of the
first commercialization of Li-ion batteries [
49
]) somehow forced the entrance of electrified
mobility. This relatively new technology opened the path to the third awakening of the
EV (the second one took place in 1990 with the arrival and sudden death of the Impact,
a model from GM [
50
]). Nissan Leaf (2010) was the first worldwide sold BEV model and,
since then, Li-ion batteries have been the choice for electrification for almost all EV models
in the market. However, since the very beginning, researchers are looking for a substitute
for these batteries due to their many drawbacks, such as a still poor energy density to
satisfy the range anxiety without causing an increase in weight, size, the extensive use of
materials, or safety among others [51].
It has sense, then, that results show how the ICV is not the first choice when environ-
mental issues are prioritized. However, even in these scenarios dominated by environmen-
tal concerns (1–3), the BEV is not very well placed, having to compete with PHEV (which
is what one can see in the automotive market nowadays). Indeed, there is one alternative
having a better result than BEV (in fact, up to twice better): the FCEV.
FCEVs eliminate most of the drawbacks of BEV and PHEV batteries with the use
of fuel cells. However, original equipment manufacturers (OEM) do not yet consider
them as a choice for electrified models due to technology readiness. FCEV technology
is yet not sufficiently mature, having much lower efficiencies than lithium-ion batteries
(50% vs. 98%) [
52
] while the compression of gas is still too expensive and the fueling
infrastructure is almost inexistent. It is noteworthy to mention that BEV is better positioned
than FCEV in only two scenarios (6 and 9), being those in which costs and infrastructure
gain more relevance.
The results obtained in this work are in line with those obtained in comparisons
made in previous studies, such as between BEVs and ICVs [
53
–
55
] or between BEVs and
FCEVs [33], or between BEVs, PHEVs and FCEVs [56].
Through this argumentation, this study corroborates, that, this third rise of BEVs and
PHEVs seems to be just a transitory phase until OEMs find another alternative, which
seems to be related to FCEV powered by hydrogen in the best cases. The duration of this
Energies 2022,15, 9149 10 of 12
phase relies on the advancements in both batteries (which are dealing with new materials
and chemistries) and fuel cell technologies. Depending on the velocity of one or another,
this phase will be longer or shorter but, in the end, batteries do not seem to be the final
choice and will be most surely substituted by FCEV, which is aligned with previous research
that states that PHEV and BEV are just a bridge to hydrogen fueled vehicles [
57
] that FCEV
are the next step of EV [
58
]. Nonetheless, the final choice is not that clear, as uncertainty
seems to be the reason for disagreement, and therefore all technologies should still develop
before deciding for one option only [59].
From the results, it is also interesting to see that, PHEV, being a merge of ICV and BEV,
has a behavior between these two alternatives in most scenarios. When environmental
criteria are enhanced, the relevance of PHEV decreases with a lower slope than that of
an ICV, taking the second position after FCEV in scenario 3. Similarly, when considering
fueling time and infrastructure, it is stable in the second position and, when analyzing
costs, it behaves almost as an ICV, being capable of even taking the lead as it has the best of
an ICV and BEV. It is interesting to note that, in all scenarios, PHEV is better positioned
than BEV.
This study presents how the higher the environmental concern higher is the interest in
FCEV and BEV while the chances to select the ICEV and PHEV decrease. These results are
aligned with other research, indicating that, in the mid-term future, several technologies
will be chosen depending on the passenger car market segment, where there is space for
PHEVs if they include biofuels [60].
This study considers six long-term criteria (GWP, POP, FT, FI, VC, and FC) and discards
technology readiness (as something that can be reached with sufficient time) to identify,
with an objective approach, which is the best choice for the future of private mobility.
Results indicate that battery-based vehicles are not very well evaluated in none of the
scenarios analyzed and, consequently, they will not be the choice of the century. Somehow,
results are relatively frustrating, as ICVs lead most of the possible scenarios except the one
considering environmental burdens, which is led by FCEVs, although they might change if
hydrogen-related costs decrease and fuel cost increase in the future, as some researchers
point out to be the case [61].
This study opens a new path of discussion, as it focuses on privately driven vehicles
only, leaving space for improvements in public transportation or substantial changes in
social mobility habits, which are gaining relevance in these last years and could change the
numbers in case of consideration.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; methodology, L.V.C.; software, L.V.C.;
validation, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; formal analysis, L.C.C.; investigation, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; resources,
L.V.C.; data curation, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; writing—original draft preparation, L.V.C. and L.C.C.;
writing—review and editing, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; visualization, L.V.C. and L.C.C.; supervision, L.V.C.
and L.C.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Acknowledgments:
Lluc Canals Casals is a Serra Hunter Fellow from the Generalitat de Catalunya.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
1.
European Commission. Mobility Strategy. 2022. Available online: https://transport.ec.europa.eu/transport-themes/mobility-
strategy_en (accessed on 4 October 2022).
2. Messagie, M. Life Cycle Analysis of the Climate Impact of Electric Vehicles; Transport & Environment: Brussel, Belgium, 2014.
3.
Archsmith, J.; Kendall, A.; Rapson, D. From cradle to junkyard: Assessing the life cycle greenhouse gas benefits of electric vehicles.
Res. Transp. Econ. 2015,52, 72–90. [CrossRef]
4.
Egede, P.; Dettmer, T.; Herrmann, C.; Kara, S. Life cycle assessment of electric vehicles—A framework to consider influencing
factors. Procedia CIRP 2015,29, 233–238. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022,15, 9149 11 of 12
5.
Helmers, E.; Weiss, M. Advances and critical aspects in the life-cycle assessment of battery electric cars. Energy Emiss. Control
Technol. 2017,5, 1–18. [CrossRef]
6.
Helmers, E.; Dietz, J.; Hartard, S. Electric car life cycle assessment based on real-world mileage and the electric conversion
scenario. Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2017,22, 15–30. [CrossRef]
7.
Wu, Z.; Wang, M.; Zheng, J.; Sun, X.; Zhao, M.; Wang, X. Life cycle greenhouse gas emission reduction potential of battery electric
vehicle. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,190, 462–470. [CrossRef]
8.
Qiao, Q.; Zhao, F.; Liu, Z.; He, X.; Hao, H. Life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of Electric Vehicles in China: Combining the
vehicle cycle and fuel cycle. Energy 2019,177, 222–233. [CrossRef]
9.
Nimesh, V.; Kumari, R.; Soni, N.; Goswami, A.K.; Reddy, V.M. Implication viability assessment of electric vehicles for different
regions: An approach of life cycle assessment considering exergy analysis and battery degradation. Energy Convers. Manag.
2021
,
237, 114104. [CrossRef]
10.
Shafique, M.; Luo, X. Environmental life cycle assessment of battery electric vehicles from the current and future energy mix
perspective. J. Environ. Manag. 2022,303, 114050. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11.
Ma, H.; Balthasar, F.; Tait, N.; Riera-Palou, X.; Harrison, A. A new comparison between the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of
battery electric vehicles and internal combustion vehicles. Energy Policy 2012,44, 160–173. [CrossRef]
12.
Hawkins, T.R.; Singh, B.; Majeau-Bettez, G.; Strømman, A.H. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of conventional
and electric vehicles. J. Ind. Ecol. 2013,17, 53–64. [CrossRef]
13.
Van Mierlo, J.; Messagie, M.; Rangaraju, S. Comparative environmental assessment of alternative fueled vehicles using a life cycle
assessment. Transp. Res. Procedia 2017,25, 3435–3445. [CrossRef]
14.
Held, M.; Schücking, M. Utilization effects on battery electric vehicle life-cycle assessment: A case-driven analysis of two
commercial mobility applications. Transp. Res. Part D Transp. Environ. 2019,75, 87–105. [CrossRef]
15.
Nordelöf, A.; Messagie, M.; Tillman, A.M.; Söderman, M.L.; Van Mierlo, J. Environmental impacts of hybrid, plug-in hybrid, and
battery electric vehicles—What can we learn from life cycle assessment? Int. J. Life Cycle Assess. 2014,19, 1866–1890. [CrossRef]
16.
Bicer, Y.; Dincer, I. Comparative life cycle assessment of hydrogen, methanol and electric vehicles from well to wheel. Int. J.
Hydrogen Energy 2017,42, 3767–3777. [CrossRef]
17.
De Souza, L.L.P.; Lora, E.E.S.; Palacio, J.C.E.; Rocha, M.H.; Renó, M.L.G.; Venturini, O.J. Comparative environmental life
cycle assessment of conventional vehicles with different fuel options, plug-in hybrid and electric vehicles for a sustainable
transportation system in Brazil. J. Clean. Prod. 2018,203, 444–468. [CrossRef]
18.
Olindo, R.; Schmitt, N.; Vogtländer, J. Life cycle assessments on battery electric vehicles and electrolytic hydrogen: The need for
calculation rules and better databases on electricity. Sustainability 2021,13, 5250. [CrossRef]
19.
Franzò, S.; Nasca, A. The environmental impact of electric vehicles: A novel life cycle-based evaluation framework and its
applications to multi-country scenarios. J. Clean. Prod. 2021,315, 128005. [CrossRef]
20.
Romare, M.; Dahllöf, L. The Life Cycle Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Lithium-Ion Batteries; IVL Swedish
Environmental Research Institute: Stockholm, Sweden, 2017.
21.
Hall, D.; Lutsey, N. Effects of Battery Manufacturing on Electric Vehicle Life-Cycle Greenhouse Gas Emissions, The Interna-
tional Council on Clean Transportation. 9 February 2018. Available online: https://theicct.org/publication/effects-of-battery-
manufacturing-on-electric-vehicle-life-cycle-greenhouse-gas-emissions/ (accessed on 14 October 2022).
22.
Canals Casals, L.; Martinez-Laserna, E.; García, B.A.; Nieto, N. Sustainability analysis of the electric vehicle use in Europe for
CO2 emissions reduction. J. Clean. Prod. 2016,127, 425–437. [CrossRef]
23.
Berjoza, D.; Jurgena, I. Influence of batteries weight on electric automobile performance. In Proceedings of the 16th International
Scientific Conference Engineering for Rural Development, Jelgava, Latvia, 24–26 March 2017.
24.
Yao, L.; Xu, S.; Tang, A.; Zhou, F.; Hou, J.; Xiao, Y.; Fu, Z. A Review of Lithium-Ion Battery State of Health Estimation and
Prediction Methods. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021,12, 113. [CrossRef]
25.
Hussein, M.; Lee, J.W.; Ramasamy, G.; Ngu, E.E.; Thiagarajah, S.V.; Lee, Y.H. Feasibility of utilising second life EV batteries:
Applications, lifespan, economics, environmental impact, assessment, and challenges. Alex. Eng. J. 2021,60, 4517–4536.
26.
Canals Casals, L.; Barbero, M.; Corchero, C. Reused second life batteries for aggregated demand response services. J. Clean. Prod.
2019,212, 99–108. [CrossRef]
27.
Kotak, Y.; Marchante Fernández, C.; Canals Casals, L.; Kotak, B.S.; Koch, D.; Geisbauer, C.; Trilla, L.; Gómez-Núñez, A.; Schweiger,
H.G. End of electric vehicle batteries: Reuse vs. recycle. Energies 2021,14, 2217. [CrossRef]
28.
Xia, X.; Li, P. A review of the life cycle assessment of electric vehicles: Considering the influence of batteries. Sci. Total Environ.
2022,814, 152870. [CrossRef]
29.
Yang, Y.; Okonkwo, E.; Huang, G.; Xu, S.; Sun, W.; He, Y. On the sustainability of lithium ion battery industry—A review and
perspective. Energy Storage Mater. 2021,36, 186–212. [CrossRef]
30.
König, A.; Nicoletti, L.; Schröder, D.; Wolff, S.; Waclaw, A.; Lienkamp, M. An overview of parameter and cost for battery electric
vehicles. World Electr. Veh. J. 2021,12, 21. [CrossRef]
31.
Li, J.; Liang, M.; Cheng, W.; Wang, S. Life cycle cost of conventional, battery electric, and fuel cell electric vehicles considering
traffic and environmental policies in China. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2021,46, 9553–9566. [CrossRef]
32. Eaves, S.; Eaves, J. A cost comparison of fuel-cell and battery electric vehicles. J. Power Sources 2004,130, 208–212. [CrossRef]
33. Thomas, C.E. Fuel cell and battery electric vehicles compared. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2009,34, 6005–6020. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022,15, 9149 12 of 12
34.
motor.es, BMW Serie 1 118i, 5 Puertas. 2019. Available online: https://www.motor.es/bmw/serie-1/118i-825125.html (accessed
on 5 October 2022).
35.
Wikipedia, Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid. 19 September 2022. Available online: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_Prius_
Plug-in_Hybrid (accessed on 5 October 2022).
36.
MyEVreview. Hyundai Kona Electric 100 kW Tech Specs. 2021. Available online: https://www.myevreview.com/tech-specs/
hyundai/kona-electric/100-kw (accessed on 5 October 2022).
37.
H2.Live. Citroën ë-Jumpy Hydrogen. 2022. Available online: https://h2.live/en/fuelcell-cars/citroen-e-jumpy-hydrogen/
(accessed on 5 October 2022).
38. Saaty, T.L. The Analytic Hierarchy Process: Planning, Priority Setting, Resource Allocation; McGraw-Hill: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
39.
Ishizaka, A.; Labib, A. Review of the main developments in the analytic hierarchy process. Expert. Syst. Appl.
2011
,38,
14336–14345. [CrossRef]
40.
Ho, W.; Ma, X. The state-of-the-art integrations and applications of the analytic hierarchy process. Eur. J. Oper. Res.
2018
,267,
399–414. [CrossRef]
41.
Shao, M.; Han, Z.; Sun, J.; Xiao, C.; Zhang, S.; Yuanxu, Z. A review of multi-criteria decision making applications for renewable
energy site selection. Renew. Energy 2020,157, 377–403. [CrossRef]
42.
Saaty, T.L. Decision Making—The Analytic Hierarchy and Network Processes (AHP/ANP). J. Syst. Sci. Syst. Eng.
2004
,13, 1–35.
[CrossRef]
43.
COSTHACK. How Much Does It Cost to Build a Gas Station? 2022. Available online: https://costhack.com/cost-to-build-a-gas-
station/ (accessed on 6 October 2022).
44.
U.S. Inflation Calculator. Consumer Price Index Data from 1913 to 2022. 2022. Available online: https://www.usinflationcalculator.
com/inflation/consumer-price-index-and-annual-percent-changes- from-1913-to-2008/ (accessed on 6 October 2022).
45. Saaty, T.L. How to make a decision: The Analytic Hierarchy Process. Eur. J. Oper. Res. 1990,48, 9–26. [CrossRef]
46.
Alonso, J.; Lamata, T. Consistency in the Analytic Hierarchy Process: A New Approach. Int. J. Uncertain. Fuzziness Knowl. Based
Syst. 2006,14, 445–459. [CrossRef]
47.
Propfe, B.; Kreyenberg, D.; Wind, J.; Schmid, S. Market penetration analysis of electric vehicles in the German passenger car
market towards 2030. Int. J. Hydrogen Energy 2013,38, 5201–5208. [CrossRef]
48. Kirsch, D.A. The Electric Vehicle and the Burden of History; Rutgers University Press: New Brunswick, NJ, USA, 2000.
49.
Reddy, M.V.; Mauger, A.; Julien, C.M.; Paolella, A.; Zaghib, K. Brief History of Early Lithium-Battery Development. Materials
2020,13, 1884. [CrossRef]
50. Rajashekara, K. History of electric vehicles in General Motors. IEEE Trans. Ind. Appl. 1994,30, 897–904. [CrossRef]
51.
Manoharan, Y.; Hosseini, S.E.; Butler, B.; Alzahrani, H.; Foua, B.; Ashuri, T.; Krohn, J. Hydrogen Fuel Cell Vehicles; Current Status
and Future Prospect. Appl. Sci. 2019,9, 2296. [CrossRef]
52.
Kirubakaran, A.; Jain, S.; Nema, R.K. A review on fuel cell technologies and power electronic interface. Renew. Sustain. Energy
Rev. 2009,13, 2430–2440. [CrossRef]
53.
Del Pero, F.; Delogu, M.; Pierini, M. Life Cycle Assessment in the automotive sector: A comparative case study of Internal
Combustion Engine (ICE) and electric car. Procedia Struct. Integr. 2018,12, 521–537. [CrossRef]
54.
Petrauskien
˙
e, K.; Skvarnaviˇci
¯
ut
˙
e, M.; Dvarionien
˙
e, J. Comparative environmental life cycle assessment of electric and conventional
vehicles in Lithuania. J. Clean. Prod. 2020,246, 119042. [CrossRef]
55.
Li, S.; Li, J.; LI, N.; Gao, Y. Vehicle Cycle Analysis Comparison of Battery Electric Vehicle and Conventional Vehicle in China. SAE
Tech. Pap. 2013. [CrossRef]
56.
Offer, G.J.; Howey, D.; Contestabile, M.; Clague, R.; Brandon, N.P. Comparative analysis of battery electric, hydrogen fuel cell and
hybrid vehicles in a future sustainable road transport system. Energy Policy 2010,38, 24–29. [CrossRef]
57. Van Mierlo, J.; Maggetto, G. Fuel cell or battery: Electric cars are the future. Fuel Cells 2007,7, 165–173. [CrossRef]
58.
Tanç, B.; Arat, H.T.; Baltacıo˘glu, E.; Aydın, K. Overview of the next quarter century vision of hydrogen fuel cell electric vehicles.
Int. J. Hydrog. 2019,44, 10120–10128. [CrossRef]
59.
Wanitschke, A.; Hoffmann, S. Are battery electric vehicles the future? An uncertainty comparison with hydrogen and combustion
engines. Environ. Innov. Soc. Transit. 2019,35, 509–523. [CrossRef]
60.
Cano, Z.P.; Banham, D.; Ye, S.; Hintennach, A.; Lu, J.; Fowler, M.; Chen, Z. Batteries and fuel cells for emerging electric vehicle
markets. Nat. Energy 2018,3, 279–289. [CrossRef]
61.
Li, Y.; Kimura, S. Economic competitiveness and environmental implications of hydrogen energy and fuel cell electric vehicles in
ASEAN countries: The current and future scenarios. Energy Policy 2021,148, 111980. [CrossRef]
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
